Wakilii

Asule Emmanuel v Turlnensi Zedeka and Another [2026] UGHCLD 150

High Court · 2026 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Taxation appeal by chamber summons against the ruling of a Deputy Registrar (taxing master) allowing two separate bills of costs
Decision
Taxation ruling set aside; respondents to present a single bill of costs for fresh taxation before a Deputy Registrar

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court held that under Regulation 42 of the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations 2018, an advocate acting for two or more parties may present only one bill of costs unless separate pleadings or separate proceedings were taken on behalf of those parties and the taxing officer finds them necessary and proper. Following the Supreme Court's interpretation of the in pari materia provision in Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparelia, the taxing master erred in taxing two practically identical bills where the respondents filed a joint defence and conducted all proceedings jointly. A preliminary objection that the appeal was time-barred was overruled for good cause, the appellant not having been notified of the ruling's delivery.

Outcome

Taxation ruling set aside; respondents to present a single bill of costs for fresh taxation before a Deputy Registrar

Facts

The appellant sued both respondents jointly in Civil Suit No. 506 of 2019 seeking eviction, a permanent injunction and damages in respect of land at Buyego Village, Katikamu South County, Luwero District. The respondents, instructing the same firm, M/s Ssekaana & Associated Advocates (now M/s SAAC Advocates), filed a joint written statement of defence, and all subsequent steps, including mediation, evidence and written submissions, were conducted jointly. The respondents succeeded and were awarded costs. Their counsel then filed two separate bills of costs, one for each respondent, each in an aggregate sum of UGX 17,986,000. At taxation on 27 November 2024 the appellant's counsel objected to the filing of two bills by the same counsel for parties who had filed a joint defence. The taxing master ordered written submissions and fixed a ruling date of 16 December 2024, but the ruling was instead delivered in late January 2025 without notice to the appellant's counsel, who received a copy from the respondents' counsel on 25 March 2025. The appellant filed this taxation appeal in April 2025 together with a separate application for enlargement of time. The two bills were practically identical in itemisation and covered the same work.

Issues

  1. Whether the taxation appeal should be struck out for having been filed outside the time prescribed by section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. Whether the taxing master erred in law and fact by allowing two separate bills of costs for two respondents represented by the same counsel who had filed a joint written statement of defence.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled and the appeal admitted to be heard on its merits.
  • Taxation Appeal No. 0032 of 2025 is allowed.
  • The Taxation Ruling of the Deputy Registrar in Taxation Application No. 59 of 2024 is set aside.
  • The respondents are directed to present one bill of costs for taxation before a Deputy Registrar of the court.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Separate Bills of Costs Where the Same Advocate Represents Two or More Parties
Where the same advocate is employed by two or more plaintiffs or defendants, that advocate may present only one bill of costs for taxation unless separate pleadings or other separate proceedings were delivered or taken by or on behalf of those parties, and the taxing officer must disallow costs occasioned by separate steps that were unnecessarily or improperly incurred.
Civil Procedure — Taxation of Costs — Joint Defence — Separate Instructions and Distinct Interests Insufficient
The fact that co-defendants instructed the same advocate separately, were billed separately, or had distinct interests does not entitle them to separate bills of costs where a joint pleading was filed and all proceedings were conducted jointly.
Statutory Interpretation — Plain Meaning Rule — Conjunctive Effect of the Word "and"
Where statutory words are plain and unambiguous they must be given their natural and ordinary meaning, and the word "and" is cumulative, requiring fulfilment of all the conditions it joins together.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Limitation Under Civil Procedure Act s.79 — Admission of Appeal for Good Cause
An appellate court may admit an appeal filed after the limitation period in section 79 of the Civil Procedure Act where good cause is shown, including where the ruling appealed against was delivered on a date other than that fixed and the appellant's counsel was not notified of its delivery.
Civil Procedure — Precedent — High Court Bound by Supreme Court Interpretation of Provisions in Pari Materia
The High Court is bound by a Supreme Court interpretation of a rule that is in pari materia with the regulation before it, and must apply that interpretation to taxation of costs under the Advocates (Remuneration and Taxation of Costs) Regulations.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Bank of Uganda v Sudhir Ruparelia and Meera Investments Ltd (Taxation Reference No. 1 of 2023)
  • Abley v Date, 20 L.J.C.P (N.S) 233 [1851]
  • Duport Steel vs Sirs. QRD 1980
  • Ishwar Singh Bindra v State of U.P, AIR 1968 SC 1450

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Asule Emmanuel v Turlnensi Zedeka and Another [2026] UGHCLD 150 (27 April 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.